Analyzing Student Engagement in Teacher Elicitation: A Retrospective Discourse Analysis in a Vietnamese EFL Speaking Class

Introduction

The following chapter mainly addresses the theoretical consideration of learner diversity in the particular aspect of student’s engagement in teacher’s elicitation within the learning context of English as a foreign language (EFL) speaking class. The theoretical consideration of learner diversity is emphasized in the view of learning as a process in the way of how learners are differentiated from the others in both the linguistic and non-linguistic aspects (Benson, 2005). The core of learner diversity itself may also refer to the manifestation of factors including ethnicity, first language (L1) influences, learning background and experience, the preservation of culture, and second language (L2) proficiency into the teaching practices and principles (Greenup et al., 2020). And to some extent, the concept of learner diversity is linked with the construction of learner identities where relationships with other members are founded on the basis of intergroup interaction in a diversity of social and cultural backgrounds as well as on the goal to creative positive outcomes of forming cross-group friendship while learners are taking part in the learning process (Adamu, 2016).

The particular aspect of student’s engagement in teacher’s elicitation has its theoretical root in the field of classroom discourse analysis where the identification of communication strategies is embedded in teacher’s talk as the means to facilitate student’s talk. Using various sources from transcripts of the oral tests, self-report questionnaire, and retrospective protocol data, insights from Nakatani’s (2010) study indicated students’ strategies related to efforts in discourse maintenance and meaning negotiation could enhance their communicative ability. However, to avoid negative effects from teacher talk on student’s communicative ability, it is worth considering ways of assessment and controls of turn-taking mechanisms in classroom discourse. Waring (2008) argued that the implementation of positive assessment in explicit form could diminish learning opportunities for the demonstration of understanding and the exploration of correct answers within certain contexts. Meanwhile, on the scope of student’s talk in classroom discourse, Garton (2012) examined how students interacted with teacher’s initiative and teacher’s fronting in a controlled manner of directing. Garton’s (2012) conclusion was considerably noticed with the encouragement for the interaction patterns of co-constructing interaction between teacher and student and for student’s initiative in the creation of learning opportunities.

The third aspect of the present study refers to the learning context of EFL learning. In EFL setting, the influence of communicative language teaching is more often overlooked under the notion of communicativeness where characteristics of teacher talk would be assessed by practical concerns of how they would facilitate student contributions of responses and interaction. According to Cullen (1998), these criteria seem to overlook the constitution of communicative behavior in the outside world while ignoring how learning actually takes place in classroom context and how features contributing to effectiveness in classroom communication are represented within the above context. Thus, investigation to particular aspects of teacher’s talk is more often drawn from the focus on particular moves in classroom interaction between teacher and students. For instance, the F-move from the chain of I-R-F (Initiate-Respond-Follow-up) in teacher’s talk was identified with evaluative and discoursal roles for different ways in which these two roles supported learning in classroom discourse (Cullen, 2002). In the same line with the concern for learning support in classroom context, the repetition of lexical items integrated in discourse moves was categorized with different functions such as “emphasis, clarification, affirmation, left-fronting, choral units, re-initiation, and pedagogic reformulation” (Todd, 2005, p.189).The identification of within-repetition units in classroom discourse with different functions was also suggested with primary concern of assisting student’s comprehension of teacher’s talk and motivating their participation in the chains of interaction.